when Jesus rose from the dead, multitudes saw Him. 100's of people in crowds all together interacted with him. Thomas put his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hand.

Verbal tradition written down decades later, questionable source material. If you accept it, why do you not accept the Illiads accounts of the Greek Gods participation in the Trojan war? If you accept both, then which of the numerous conflicting cosmologies of the various religions to you accept as real, and the logical reason as to why.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

when Jesus rose from the dead, multitudes saw Him. 100's of people in crowds all together interacted with him. Thomas put his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hand.

Verbal tradition written down decades later, questionable source material. If you accept it, why do you not accept the Illiads accounts of the Greek Gods participation in the Trojan war? If you accept both, then which of the numerous conflicting cosmologies of the various religions to you accept as real, and the logical reason as to why.

In the summer of 1984, a young girl was kidnapped, raped, and murdered near her home in Baltimore County, Maryland. Twenty-three-year-old Kirk Bloodsworth was accused of the crime, and he was convicted and sentenced to death after a jury trial based largely on the eyewitness testimony of some boys playing near the murder site.

Three days after Bloodsworth’s conviction, police and prosecutors learned about David Rehill. Hours after the girl’s murder, Rehill had shown up at a mental health clinic with fresh scratches on his face and had mentioned to therapists that he was “in trouble with a little girl.” Rehill closely resembled Bloodsworth, who was already on death row. Six months passed before police decided to interview Rehill. Nevertheless, they did not place him in a lineup or doublecheck his alibi.

Due to a technical error in the trial, Bloodsworth was granted an appeal two years after his conviction. Even though prosecutors had known about Rehill for those two years, they withheld this information from the defense until two days before the second trial. Bloodsworth’s attorneys did not have enough time to investigate the new information and failed to ask for a trial postponement. The second jury never learned that there was another suspect, and they also convicted Bloodsworth of rape and murder. In 1993, however, DNA analysis of the victim’s clothing revealed that Bloodsworth could not have committed the crime, and he was exonerated. Trial observers and commentators were disquieted to learn that an innocent man had been sentenced to death.

In the summer of 1984, a young girl was kidnapped, raped, and murdered near her home in Baltimore County, Maryland. Twenty-three-year-old Kirk Bloodsworth was accused of the crime, and he was convicted and sentenced to death after a jury trial based largely on the eyewitness testimony of some boys playing near the murder site.

Does not support your claim of "courts of law use eye witness testimony to sentence people to death. even if it is just one good eye witness". Care to try again? I'm also curious ot see how you'll answer Hatter's question.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

In the summer of 1984, a young girl was kidnapped, raped, and murdered near her home in Baltimore County, Maryland. Twenty-three-year-old Kirk Bloodsworth was accused of the crime, and he was convicted and sentenced to death after a jury trial based largely on the eyewitness testimony of some boys playing near the murder site.

Does not support your claim of "courts of law use eye witness testimony to sentence people to death. even if it is just one good eye witness". Care to try again? I'm also curious ot see how you'll answer Hatter's question.

Actually, it seems to refute my direct statement as to the trial, and handily so. However the poster has, rather amusingly, given proof how unreliable eyewitness evidence is....which was the central point of the whole conversation.

It also, rather amusingly, show my capacity to modify my view when presented with evidence.

As to my other question, I too am curious.

« Last Edit: July 08, 2011, 04:40:34 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

the courts of law use eye witness testimony to sentence people to death. even if it is jsut one good eye witness, it might be enough. depends on the jury.

That's becoming increasingly rare. And rightly so, because it's really, really stupid. There's no such thing as a "good eyewitness". If you don't believe me, watch this video. It's a card trick in which the magician changes the backs of the deck of cards from one color to another one. Watch very closely, and see whether you can catch the trick after they reveal it. Almost no one ever does. (I didn't, either.)

Quote

when Jesus rose from the dead, multitudes saw Him. 100's of people in crowds all together interacted with him. Thomas put his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hand.

I find it very annoying that so many people in scripture got direct confirmation of their god's existence, but I'm supposed to decide the fate of my eternal soul on a 2,000-yer-old book whose authorship is largely anonymous and whose events are almost entirely uncorroborated (and, in many cases, demonstrably false). At best, all this demonstrates is that if Yahweh exists, he is not a just being.

Eye witnesses testimony is only weighted in court when it is unimpeachable. How would you cross-examine the writings of Mark, when 1. The gospel writer's name is not Mark.2. We don't know the writer's name nor has anyone living seen ever seen his original manuscripts or heard his original words.3. We don't know the writer's motives, it could have been a joke..4. We don't know if the writer had integrity.5 We don't know if the writer even existed.

Sponge Bob lives in a pineapple at the bottom of the sea, I can produce thousands of witnesses to his antics. Is that proof?

when Jesus rose from the dead, multitudes saw Him. 100's of people in crowds all together interacted with him. Thomas put his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hand.

That's interesting. Get that from the Bible, did you? I can't find it in mine.....

What I CAN find is Jesus making the offer to Thomas to do that - but no record of Thomas taking him up on it. And yet you (presumably, since you are using it in your arguments) believed that it happened.

As you've pointed out in your murder-case story, it is for that exact reason that eye-witness testimony is so unreliable. You believed so strongly that Thomas put his fingers in Jesus' hands that you used it as part of your case for Jesus' resurrection - but did it actually happen?

I can't believe you people are basing your premise on whether or not god is real on if he will answer your demand and in the time frame you request. He won't heal my amputated arm....no God. he won't stop murder... no God. He won't appear and do jumping jacks when I want him to...No evidence of a God.

Let me make a parable. say you were creating a beautiful piece of handmade furniture that required many pieces and those many pieces had to be precisely cut, and sanded, and stained, and varnished, and assembled to perfection to make this extraordinary outcome.

Then one of the pieces of wood jumped out at you and said what the fuck are you doing? Why the fuck is my arm cut off right now and why won't you heal it immediately? If you truely are my maker and have good intentions for me in the end then you will do as I ask you to do right now. If you do not then I will deny that you even exist.

Then you say I'm sorry piece of wood but in the near future you will be happier and more beautiful than you could ever imagine. I'm not going to heal your cut because the time is not right and I can foresee this where you cannot. And you say fuck you I can see just fine. Heal me Now! I can think for myself! I know this because I am so smart that I know where I came from. Wait a minute, I don't even know that, but I am still so fucking smart HAHAHA

I can't believe you people are basing your premise on whether or not god is real on if he will answer your demand and in the time frame you request.

Or maybe it's because the Bible says he will... and he doesn't. So either he's a liar (and therefore not worthy of worship) or he doesn't exist (and therefore isn't worthy of worship). Take your pick.The rest of your post is a false analogy (mixed with some insults), as I explain above.

Also, I see you didn't read the warning in red about the "60 days" thing. You should try it.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

And since when is the Bible a truth that all things be weighed against?

If we assume the Bible to be false, there's not much use in arguing about the god described in it, is there?Christians assume the Bible to be true. We know it's false. If we're to have a proper discussion, one side needs to look at it from the other's perspective.Since most christians are too arrogant to see things from our perspective, we're the ones who see it from theirs.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Sorry my second sentence was supposed to be taken sarcastically. Anyway, you have no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is not the truth. And you also have No undeniable evidence that God does not exist. Lucifer's greatest deception is convincing the world that he does not exist as well.

And why would he want this? If there is no God then there is no God to follow. Either you are with Christ or you are against him. If you refuse to choose then you are against him and therefore have allegiance to Satan. The anti-Christ.

Either you are with Christ or you are against him. If you refuse to choose then you are against him and therefore have allegiance to Satan. The anti-Christ.

That's a nice way to look at things. "You're either with me or you'll be tortured for eternity". I'll keep my free will, thank you very much.Even if your god was real, I wouldn't worship it. I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than worship a mass-murderer. The fact that you don't just shows how selfish and/or evil you are.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Sorry my friend but Lucifer is Satan. Or the the perfect angel that thought he was equal to God therefore fell from Heaven and became what we know as Satan. Please beware the deadly sin that started it all...Pride. Even our maker showed us the importance of turning from pride by becoming human and allowing his human creations to crucify and humiliate him. Even after that he still forgives us and invites us to live in eternal paradise. The only requirement...accept the gift.

Even our maker showed us the importance of turning from pride by becoming human and allowing his human creations to crucify and humiliate him. Even after that he still forgives us and invites us to live in eternal paradise.

Forgave us for setting us up to fail. Makes perfect sense. Read the Bible, stop preaching and use logic.

The physical presence of your alleged god in a crowd of people of different faiths and none, and the unambiguous restoration of both lower limbs (with full restoration of neurological function, confirmed by a medical EMG laboratory) to a double amputee... Live, on television.

LOLI'd settle for the provable restoration.

Actually to prove any "holy" book is genuinely sacred I'd settle for every translation being perfect - no matter what. By my simple criteria, there are no genuine holy books.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

...you have no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is not the truth. And you also have No undeniable evidence that God does not exist...

I have no evidence whatsoever that the Harry Potter series is not the truth. And I have no undeniable evidence that Harry Potter does not exist.

How do you know that the brick wall at the train station doesn't open up for wizards going to school? How do you know that owls aren't carrying messages to your neighbors when you're not looking? And don't tell me its because tons of people believe the bible, whereas everyone knows the Harry Potter series is a work of fiction. People are incredibly gullible, and fall for all kinds of scams. Sheer numbers isn't proof of anything except that people tend to absorb the culture in which they were raised.

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Anyway, you have no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is not the truth.

Actually we do. Nazareth didn't exist in the first century.

There are claims in the bible that contradict each other, such as Judas Dieing in two different way, several different orders of creation, God never repents and does repent, God cannot defeat chariots of iron, but does in other chapters.

There is no firmament above the sky.

The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000.

The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.

So yes, we do.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Correct, the credulous can deny valid evidence that whatever there favored myth is no real. You rank amongst the credulous.

So I ask you, do you have any undeniable evidence that the Flying Spaghetti monster does not exist?

« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 01:15:17 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Lucifer's greatest deception is convincing the world that he does not exist as well.

So apparently it is the greatest deception of every mythological and fictional entity. Do you have any understanding how empty of a statement your above quote is? It is stating that no evidence of existence is evidence of existence! Absurd!

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I can't believe you people are basing your premise on whether or not god is real on if he will answer your demand and in the time frame you request. He won't heal my amputated arm....no God. he won't stop murder... no God. He won't appear and do jumping jacks when I want him to...No evidence of a God.

Actually, its because this god doesn't so anything. Ever. Giving nobody ANY reason to assume he, she, or it actually exists.

Let me make a parable. say you were creating a beautiful piece of handmade furniture that required many pieces and those many pieces had to be precisely cut, and sanded, and stained, and varnished, and assembled to perfection to make this extraordinary outcome.

Then one of the pieces of wood jumped out at you and said what the fuck are you doing? Why the fuck is my arm cut off right now and why won't you heal it immediately? If you truely are my maker and have good intentions for me in the end then you will do as I ask you to do right now. If you do not then I will deny that you even exist.

Then you say I'm sorry piece of wood.....

Well heck - if you;'re going to make a parable that works, you have to have the maker NOT answer any questions. At all. Ever. And you have to ensure that the creator is completely invisible and undetectble, so much so that the piece of wood has no idea whether or not it even exists.

Don't forget as well to make the woodmaker a benevolent and loving creator who wants the best from his creation, and really wants a relationsip with them and really wants them to know him. Then make him hide for ever and never answer any questions. Then your parable will come close.

Either you are with Christ or you are against him. If you refuse to choose then you are against him and therefore have allegiance to Satan. The anti-Christ.

Do you have allegiance with Loki, after all either you are either for Thor or against him. If you refuse to choose you are against Thor and have allegiance to Loki.

Do you understand? Can it get through your programming?

Secondly, I've read your collection of myths, the Bible, Satan isn't the anti-Christ. Why do we atheist actually have to point out to believers what is actually contained in their own book??????

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Lucifer's greatest deception is convincing the world that he does not exist as well. And why would he want this?

Why woulf god want this? Why would a benevolent and powerful god allow the most evil being in the universe to hide himself and cause so many of god's creation to be tempted into sin? Perhaps your god isn't as powerful, or as benevolent, as you would like to think.

Lucifer's greatest deception is convincing the world that he does not exist as well. And why would he want this?

Why woulf god want this? Why would a benevolent and powerful god allow the most evil being in the universe to hide himself and cause so many of god's creation to be tempted into sin? Perhaps your god isn't as powerful, or as benevolent, as you would like to think.

Who would even put Satan into the "evil" category......? everything he did was at God's command.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Lucifer's greatest deception is convincing the world that he does not exist as well. And why would he want this?

Why woulf god want this? Why would a benevolent and powerful god allow the most evil being in the universe to hide himself and cause so many of god's creation to be tempted into sin? Perhaps your god isn't as powerful, or as benevolent, as you would like to think.

Who would even put Satan into the "evil" category......? everything he did was at God's command.

...And YHWH isn't evil? He CREATED evil.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

>snip<Let’s think carefully about proof #1 and see if succeeds in showing that god is imaginary. If it does, that’s big news; we’d have found out something very interesting. We may express proof #1 succinctly as follows:

?Premise 1: According to the Bible, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it will be. ?Premise 2: But, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it won’t be cured. ?Therefore: The God of the Bible is imaginary. Let’s start by thinking about the logic of this argument. Suppose its premises are true. It then follows that at least some of the Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken. But now notice that the conclusion says more than that. It says that the God of the Bible is imaginary. How does that follow from the premises? To reach that conclusion, we need an additional premise—something like this:

?Premise 3: If some of the Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken, then the God of the Bible is imaginary.Now it’s worth pointing out that the author of proof #1 doesn’t even discuss anything like Premise 3. It appears to be a background assumption. But for the proof to succeed, Premise 3, or something like it, needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise, the argument is logically invalid: the conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises.

My sense is that the vast majority of people would find Premise 3 implausible.

I'll grant that Marshall should have worded his arguments more carefully and precisely if he really meant to address them to "intelligent, educated Christians," as he often says in his videos. However, he really seems to be targeting fundamentalists who hold that Biblical inerrancy is an essential doctrine. Against that particular version of Christianity, Premise 3 is assumed, by the fundamentalists themselves.

Even if we set the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy aside, and admit that Biblical statements about prayer could be mistaken...then we're also in a position of admitting that Biblical statements about God could be mistaken. "The god of the Bible" becomes a lot less coherent as a concept once we're in a position of not knowing which parts "of the Bible" are in error and which ones aren't. "the god of whatever parts of the Bible aren't in error" is a much more slippery concept to deal with.

After all, it seems perfectly possible for a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing being described by the Bible

The Bible does not describe such a being. At best, such ideas might be inferred from a few examples of hyperbolic "courtier-speak" from Biblical authors heaping praise on their heavenly master. Like hundred-foot tall statues of a Pharaoh, such praises are meant to "magnify the Lord" rather than provide anything resembling an objective, accurate description of his nature. When we compare such praises with the way Yahweh is actually portrayed in action as a character in narrative, it is self-evident that he does not possess any of those attributes. Believers have to engage in all sorts of convoluted theological loop-o-planes in a desperate but futile effort to reconcile their lofty theology with the Biblical deity and all his genocides and cruelties and need for magical, but primitive technologies (flaming swords and horse-drawn chariots), his jealousy and pettiness, his obvious lack of superhuman intelligence or perceptive abilities, and his spoiled-12-year-old-with-super-powers behavior patterns, and all the rest.

to be real whether or not the Bible itself makes mistakes. So, Premise 3 is questionable (to say the least).

If such an omnimax Deity existed and, for some reason chose a literary idol scribed by human hands as its method of communication, and it intended to communicate effectively, then it follows that such a book could not be riddled with errors. If it is omnipotent and omniscient, the Deity could not fail. If it is omnibenevolent, it would not want to.

Quote

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Someone might reply that perhaps “the God of the Bible” just means “the God that would exist if the entire Bible were true.” In that case, Premise 3 would be axiomatic. However, then the conclusion would be compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being. And certainly any argument that’s compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being is not an argument that God is imaginary.

You have given no reason why the perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being could not be a Goddess. In that case, the existence of such an omnimax being would be compatible with the argument that "God" (if by "God" you mean the god of the Bible) is imaginary.

So, if proof #1 is indeed an argument that God is imaginary, then it relies on a dubious premise; therefore, proof #1 fails to establish its conclusion. It seems, then, that reflective truth-seekers wouldn’t be moved by it.

We could stop here. The proof fails to establish what it claims to establish.

It does, if you attempt to claim that "the god of the Bible" is an omnimax, as you do above. By definition, such a being could not fail to produce a perfect Bible, if it so intended. If it did not so intend, then why even call it "the god of the Bible?" At best, the Bible would represent random guesses by primitive humans at what an omnimax being would be like. We have no reason to think that their guesses about the nature of an omnimax Deity would be any more accurate than their guesses about the nature and workings of the Cosmos as found in the Bible.

If you take the Bible at its word, in its portrayals of Yahweh as a rather limited, and far from perfect or moral, small-g god, then yes, you can escape Proof #1. A fallible and/or capricious small god could produce an imperfect Bible, either by accident or design, while still being responsible for "inspiring" every word. Such a god would obviously not succumb to Proof #1 for a number of reasons. On the other hand, how many Christians actually believe in and worship such a god?

But the proof fails in more ways than one. According to this proof, the Bible’s statements on prayer imply that God would cure all of cancer on account of our prayers. But the proof fails to rule out (or even consider) the following possibility: background conditions on prayer are implicit in the text.

Consider that according to Matthew’s account, Jesus says, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” He goes on: “not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39).

And elsewhere, he says, “This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven… your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9-10).

It appears that Jesus thinks prayers must be possible to answer (so, no asking for square circles). And prayers must accord with God’s will.

What we have here, is a failure to communicate. And it is a failure on the part of Yahweh, if you attribute the Bible to his "inspiration."

Why, then, does Jesus say that “everyone who asks receives”? A standard answer, which proof #1 fails to address, is that background conditions on prayer are implicit and would have been understood by his audience.

Indeed, that’s exactly what Jesus’ earliest followers thought: the Johanine text says that we know that we have what we ask for if we ask according to his will (John 5:14-15).

The very idea that nearly all Christians have to try to read the minds of people living centuries or millennia in the past, from cultures and times alien to their own in order to even guess at the "true" meaning of their Scriptures, ought to expose the sheer ridiculousness of the idea that a god worthy of the name would choose "the Bible" as its method of communicating with its followers. There are around 2 billion Christians today who look to the Bible for their understanding of Yahweh, but as you admit, "the Bible" wasn't written to or for them. It's "audience" consists of relatively small numbers of Jews and Gentiles living in ancient times, speaking dead languages and using unfamiliar idioms and cultural contexts.

Now it certainly does seem good for all cancer to be cured. But the crucial question is this: could God instantly cure all cancer without thereby forfeiting a higher good? That’s a difficult question, and proof #1 doesn’t even attempt to answer it.

For all that proof #1 says, it may be that our fighting against cancer with mental and physical energy forges courage, compassion, and unique and special relationships between everlasting beings. What if some cancer allows us to become heroes in loving others? More generally, what if a finite stage of suffering can act as a means to certain everlasting bonds of love that far outweigh that suffering?

Really? Really?! OK, so cancer is a wonderful thing, and we would be worse off without it. If that's the case, then there's no reason to go saying that people are depraved and deserving of Hell because Adam and Eve ate a fruit. If they had not done so, they would have continued to live deathlessly in Eden, and there would have been no lovely cancer to make heroes of anyone. As sick as this idea is, it gets even worse when the doctrine of Hell is taken into account. According to Jesus, the vast majority of people will end up suffering eternity in Hell, because they fail to believe in him in the just-right way. If that's so, then Yahweh's failure to cure cancer, or do anything else that unambiguously demonstrates his existence insures that those billions of people will suffer the most horrific agony imaginable, for ever.

How can the opportunity for any degree of "heroism" for a few be worth not only the existence of cancer, but also the everlasting suffering of most humans in Hell?

Jesus compares faith to a seed, not a magical wand. Seeds grow with time to produce fruit. There’s a process. And some methods of cultivation are more effective than others.

Truth is often complicated. Therefore, when a perfect being speaks truth, this being should sometimes speak about complex matters. What he says should sometimes baffle the simple-minded, while being discernible to the wise.

Since the purpose of these arguments is to explain why your god doesn't do anything--i.e., why reality behaves exactly as we would expect it to if your god was imaginary--we have good reason to point out that this indicates your own awareness (in terms of your anticipation of reality's behavior) that you live in the same godless universe we do.